150465_A

Quiz #3 (15 November 2018)

#1
Bordieu claims that the state wields its symbolic power by integrating this to
incompatible explanatory models of perceiving reality which are physicalist vision and
semiologicalist vision. This is because the state is not merely an entity but it is a dynamic reality
or process that is always unstable and moving. It participates on this endless struggle for
domination. It imposes on the principles of vision and division in the society because the state
is the most powerful entity that has the power to impose the existence of everything in the
world be it your house, your position in life, your dog, and even your grandmother. The state
will shit on everything you love because the state is the only one with the power to sanction
what can and cannot exist. Bourdieu then tries to explain this concept by introduction of the
physicalist vision and the semiologicalist vision. The physicalist vision is literally the things
we see on this earth. A pen is a pen. A dog is a dog. As it is. Nothing more nothing less. While
in the other hand, semiologicalist vision tries to interpret the things that we see. For example,
a boy giving a flower to a girl can lead up to a lot of interpretations such as the boy is in love
with girl, maybe the boy wanted to thank her so he gave her a flower, or simply the boy just
wanted to get laid so he is trying to woo this girl. Bordieu comes into the picture and says that
what we think doesn’t really matter. The state gives meaning to something and therefore there
is no way to argue with the state because the mind of the state is always incoherent and
incomprehensible. Bordieu was able to narrow things down by introducing the concepts of
nomos, which is a particular vision that shared with the world, habitus, which are essentially
biases that we learn from society, and 4 species of capital. The first species is the physical force
capital. Only the state will able to use coercive means in achieving their goals as it legitimizes
violence. The second species is the economic capital wherein the state can use levies and taxes
to extract money from the people legitimately and the people cannot oblige the state to do their
duties to give back. The third power is information capital wherein the state manipulates the
information and deceive the people. The fourth and last power is the symbolic power is where
they can impose meanings to symbols as norms as they curb the sense of vision of the people
and continue to impose the perception of the people. All of this concepts helps Bordieu explain
that the state is essentially a toxic possessive and manipulative boyfriend that uses this capitals
to limit the people because the state is that powerful to name even your existence. That the
person is doomed to be obey to the state and what it wants to do. The only way to stop the state
is the delete the state. (Bordieu 1994)
The state then for me is the powerful entity that can screw up anyone’s life as it sees
fit. Rarely is there a state that actually cares for it citizens and I think it’s really important for
people to realize that the state, most of the time, is not our friend. That the state will do anything
to prevent itself to get overthrown. As an Ateneo student, a lot of people have already given
me bad looks of going against the will of the state especially with my parents. I joined that rally
that was against the Marcos burial and my dad saw me raising my fist in the air. We had a
heated discussion about it and told me that I should stay away from the rallies and just suck it
up to the shitty government that is running this shit show. People telling me that rallying is just
a waste of time and I should focus my energy somewhere else. See, this is what the state wants
to happen. It on the control of everything and legitimizing anything it does. Goes so far that
the army has accused universities of being part of the New People’s Army and this creates a
downward view on the students. This is why we have to be aware of what the true nature of the
state really is and drop that the disposition that the we should just follow them because they
are overwhelming. It’s important to know what the state truly is for us students to know how
to deal with the state and its playground.
 #2
Both Barkey and Parikh recognized that the existing dominant theories such as
Weberian, Pluralist, Marxist, and Structural-Functionalism theories fall short because they are
society-based theories. Barkey and Parikh are not happy with these theories because these
theories talk about the state yet the focus primarily on the state. Therefore the authors came up
with a compromise of creating the state-society theory. Rather than discarding the old theories,
they decided to incorporate them together and seeing the relationship between the two entities.
There is a great importance in learning this because this is an actual theory that actually
involves the presence of the state, not just society. This theory treats both society and state as
equals and this is done by looking into the relationship of each other. Barkey and Parikh
presented this theory by examining three perspectives of the theory: State as an actor, State vs.
Society, and State and Society. Firstly, state as an actor gives bias on the state as the actor. It
is related to the Weberian theory by highlighting the actions of the state here. The next
perspective is the State vs. Society which takes on an antagonistic relationship that comes from
the roots of the Marxist Theory. The struggle of this two entities such as the wars, revolution,
civil unrest, and the longing of change highlights this perspective. Last but not the least is the
State and Society wherein the roots of the Pluralist and Structural – Functionalism comes into
life again. This is a productive perspective wherein the flourishing symbiotic relationship of
the two entities highlight each other. Barkey and Parikh and explain the relationship between
this two entities by showing the independent and dependent variables and two ways of states
being created: The Western way and the non western way. The western way of state creation
is divided into two: External and Internal. In the external way of creation, they created most
likely due to a way. People needed to organize a military to they centralized their powers for
them professionalize the use of violence. This eventually gave birth to states. As for the internal
conflict, economic crises gave rise to the a state. One notable example was the French
revolution wherein the French wanted a balance in economy. Another factor is the cultural
revolution where one state learns about freedom and fights for it. The non-western ways of
creating a state came out from a negotiation. For the external context argument, states are born
out of peace settlements. The US granted independence to the Philippines is an example. For
Internal Context Argument, one good example would be the Katipunan factions Magdiwang
vs Magdalo as these two camps never agree with each other thus territoriality issues came out
and separated the Katipuneros. Barkey and Parikh were able to justify this relationship that the
state was able to facilitate economic development of the country. The state and its monopoly
on certain resources made this possible. Yes, the society and market can shape the nation but
they cannot pass laws wherein the state can. (Barkey 1991)
My theory of the state is that it is an agreement. Sort of an agreement of a bunch of
actors to unite under one. For me, the Philippine became a state because of that desire to live
independently and thus a peace settlement was done between the Filipinos and the Americans.
Because of this Philippine State it has shaped how the way I lived. The state was responsible
of the curriculum that I am taking in college. The Filipino classes, math classes, the Rizal
literature I had to tackle was all due to the state organizing that imposing those laws. After POS
100 class I’d find myself standing alongside with everyone else as we all let the national anthem
play at the Ateneo campus. It wasn’t the market that let that happen no but it was the Philippine
State who used her will to impose that on us students. I think the reason why this happens is a
constant reminder that the state exist, and it will always be there as long I reside under this state
and I have to duty to respect that as a student in the Philippines.
 Bonus
Under the definitions of Barkey and Parikh, the Philippine state and society is
considered to be a Weak State, Strong Society one (Barkey 1991). The Philippine state is a
huge part of the political instability here in the country. Politicians in the country are run by
businessmen who wants to keep earning and capitalizing on everything and the politics here
in the Philippines allows that to happen. These private entities are able to run this country as
it sees fit. An example of that is Duterte as the president of the Philippines. He promised a lot
to the people, that the poor will be uplifted and the they would be prioritized first. However,
all of that are in shambles as our president sided with the businessmen and friends, giving
them positions and resources that will make them rich. The state, supposedly to use this
resources for the majority of society, is just given to the elite. At this moment, I don’t think
the Philippine State will create a lasting political stability. Once Duterte steps down in power,
the one replacing him would be those people in power who were able to woo the
businessmen. The Philippine state has to go back to its values and its roots. Gone the days
where the leaders of this country genuinely and actively pursue a country that every Filipino
could be proud of. The state should go back to its whys and in the first place and the reason
why they exist in the first place – society. Not some Filipino-Chinese billionaire who wanted
a piece of land to extend his properties but the country that needed its well deserve change for
so long.
It is not a question whether are not the Philippine state is a solution but it is a must
that the Philippine state be a part of that solution to the corruption and the faltering economy
Philippines. For once, I hope that this country stands as one. Tagalog to Cebuano, Moro to
Christian. That shouldn’t matter because we are all Filipinos. The Philippine state must be a
solution and so as a the Filipino society when it comes to facing these problems in our
everyday lives.
 References

Barkey, K. & Parikh, S. (1991) Comparative Perspectives on the

State. Annual Review of Sociology 17, 523-549.

Bourdieu, P. (1994) Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field.
Sociological Theory 12 (1), 1-18.